Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I got involved with the inland rail matter due to constituents contacting me with their concerns about it. I support the concept of the inland rail from the Melbourne port to the Brisbane port. However, the process conducted by ARTC and Inland Rail leaves a lot to be desired.

The consultation conducted by ARTC and Inland Rail has been continually criticised by the public. They gave evidence that they were not consulted about or considered in respect of what impact the rail would have on their lives or the environment. It was only because of the committee that people felt they finally had a voice and that pressure was put on ARTC and Inland Rail to listen to communities.

The committee has made reference to the cost blowout of the project that now stands at $14.5 billion. In addition to this, the project description dissection of the draft G2H EIS appears to provide some of the PPP costs—the public-private partnership—which includes all Queensland sections, including the border to Gowrie and the Kagaru to Acacia Ridge sections, which are not part of the PPP. The total construction is $3.3 billion. The approximately 24 per cent for indirect costs is approximately $792 million, and the total PPP cost is approximately $4 billion. Additional to these costs, which have not been calculated, are the anticipated costs of building tunnels and track from Acacia Ridge to the Port of Brisbane. Again, this is an additional cost in the vicinity of $2.8 billion, yet the ARTC claims it will using existing track.

It has been determined that the inland rail trains have to unload and potentially reload to use an existing passenger line to the Port of Brisbane. This double handling of goods can only increase the time and cost of delivering goods to the Port of Brisbane. If product is not destined for the port, it would be transported by truck to various destinations from a highly congested terminal that is at its peak capacity at this present point in time. Therefore, why is the ARTC persistent in planning to have Acacia Ridge as the central point for the distribution centre for the cargo, whether that is to the port of Brisbane or other destinations? This is short-sighted and lacks foresight into the future, especially if we expect growth, and the whole concept of the ARTC is to promote growth. It will wither and die on the vine.

I must reiterate that Acacia Ridge should not be used. People from the surrounding suburbs, estimated at 50,000 residents, have very strongly opposed the Inland Rail's destination being Acacia Ridge. Their concerns are based on noise pollution, vibration and congestion. This is not to be overlooked when evidence given stated that the number of trains a day could be approximately 38 or more. Additionally, these trains are initially 1.8-kilometres long, which puts them outside the Acacia Ridge terminal, regardless of the expectation to double the terminal's length in the future. If these trains intend to use the passenger train line to the port, the majority of their frequency must be during the night, which will further impact on residents. I must also add that the passenger line cannot take 1.8-kilometre trains that are double-stacked. It can't take the trains that are used on the Inland Rail, because of bridges, tunnels and curvature. It is pointless to have an inland rail line if it doesn't take advantage of loading or unloading produce or product in hubs throughout the inland rail route to enhance profits and pay for the building of the infrastructure.

In my opinion, if we bypass making a firm decision now to build the line directly to Gladstone via Miles at a cost of approximately $3.5 billion, we will not do it in the future and a great opportunity will be lost. It will be a lost opportunity to create jobs, growth and opportunities in this rural community. Evidence given was very strongly in favour of the line to Gladstone, which would be utilised by coalmines in the area that indicated that they would start projects and create development and jobs if the line were made available to them. That potential will not be available with the line only going to Acacia Ridge. The port of Gladstone, which is capable of taking more ships than the port of Brisbane, is a lot more viable for the long-term growth, and the line would pay for itself in no time with the increased use of line. The port of Gladstone and the port of Brisbane are unanimous in the view that both ports could work together for mutual benefit and for the benefit of the nation. The proposed alternative routes from Toowoomba to the ports of Brisbane and Gladstone should be investigated to take into account my previous suggestion. The cost savings in not having to construct a 6.2-kilometre tunnel through the Toowoomba Range alone are estimated at approximately $6 billion, although the ARTC has not disclosed this costing, with the claim it is commercial-in-confidence.

The plan to take the line via Millmerran to Toowoomba is not only a huge cost to the taxpayer in reclaiming land and established farms and infrastructure; there's also the stupidity of ignoring sound advice from locals and professional hydrologists with regard to major flooding issues across the black soil plains. The devastation the last flood left leaves no one in doubt about the damage flooding causes in the area. If the ARTC and the government insist on going solely via Toowoomba, a viable alternative route has been proposed across brownfields approximately six kilometres from the proposed line. That would not impact on residents, water flows or infrastructure, and the resulting cost reduction in construction would be massive and, hence, a saving to the taxpayer.

This is a massive Australian infrastructure project that should result in Australian companies' participation, as well as an Australian workforce. The supply of steel as well as other materials, particularly in these economic times due to the pandemic, would ensure the ongoing viability of those Australian companies and Australians generally. However, it has come to my attention, as well as that of others, that, irrespective of the fact that Australian companies have designed various components of the line, the final contracts were not awarded to Australian companies but were, in fact, given to Chinese suppliers. One only has to look at the overall project-managing company, which is now totally controlled by its Chinese parent company, to realise why major supply contracts are now being sourced from China and not from preferred Australian companies that are ready, willing and able. So I ask the government: where is the benefit to Australia and Australians, particularly at this point in time?

Throughout the inquiry we asked: who is in control and who makes the decisions? The ARTC told us it is the government that determines the planning, yet the government told us it's the ARTC. So, in fact, nobody knows who is in control.

I say to the government and the bureaucrats: that this project costs nearly $20 billion and has no sound business case is a disgrace. If this is not to become a white elephant, the government must listen to the sound advice given to it by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, who listened to the concerns of ordinary Australians who do not oppose the Inland Rail. They want to see value for money and a viable, much-needed project that can only make our nation more prosperous.

In my personal opinion, after being involved in the inquiry process, I don't have confidence in the design, the management, the minister or the government to deliver a profitable rail line that will see us well into the future and will hold up to the ever-changing technology and economy. For the money spent, this is a disgrace.